Chris,

I did a little more research and they do have new ones that have HD resolving power.

http://www.vfgadgets.com/RedEye.htm

I might just pick one of these up and give her a spin. the .5x should be just right for my needs.

Has anyone used the Canon Wide-Angle attachment. The one Canon sells. Is it any good?

It's very impressive for the price.

Hi guys,

Has anyone bought the CAnon Wide Angle lens? if you have how you like it and what was the $$$$?
Looking to get one.


Thanks
Matthew

Got it for about $425. I like it !! Although I will restate what many have already said in this forum = adding that glass makes the XH-A1 almost impossible to use as a "palm-corder" style camera. I wish Canon would have made the A1 into the body of the L1 (shoulder mount).

I got the Canon WD-H72 wide angle for the A1, from EVS in Glendale for $399.
So far I have not shot a lot with it. The reason is in part due to the fact that it has a 109mm (!!!) filter size, and I cannot find a source yet for that size a filter.
I have used it indoors, and like it for shooting interriors. It is heavy, and hand held shooting with it on....well, it builds character, as well as your biceps.

I am curious to the reason this doesn't work on the H1. On BH site it lists this as compatible with the A1/G1 and the XL2. It doesn't mention the H1. ZGC tried it on their H1 in the shop and the said the threads don't line up or something. I think optically it is compatible but Canon may have made it have an incompatible mounting to keep the demand of the 6x wide lens up.

But isn't 72mm thread a 72mm thread? Perhaps it needs a spacer like the CO Wide angle that I have.

Anyone want to weigh in on this?

Peace!

Good Question, I am curious to know as well.

I got the Canon WD-H72 wide angle for the A1 and think it is great value. It really makes the camera front heavy and a little more difficult to deal with hand held. I have to say the little bag that comes with the lense is quite odd. Perhaps a different pouch would make sense. Any ideas on alternative methods to transporting the lense outside of a hard case would be apporeciated.

Have any of you users of the wide angle found a source for a filter for it? I am nervous about using it, unprotected. The 109mm filter size is a killer.

Hi,
I got my XHA1 about 3 weeks ago, and have shot a couple jobs with it and am loving it, thus far. Only issue is, I got the Canon wide angle because optically Canon glass is sooo good. Problem is, I cannot find a filter for its enormous 109mm size! All I need noe is a decent UV, basically for protection. Any suggestions? I have tried B&W, Century, and Hoya to no avail.
Any help would sure be appreciated.
SW

Hi Steve, you better check the front of the adapter... there aren't any threads for mounting a screw-on filter! A clamp-on mattebox, or a matte box and rails, is going to be your best bet for adding UV or any other type of filter to the front of the WA adapter.

Chris,
Thanks for the info--I had just assumed that it would be threaded (!!!).

The down-and-dirty way is tape a 4X5.650 filter inside the hood that comes with the WA.

Jim Martin

Oh-oh. Be *very* wary about filtration when you're working at focal lengths such as 2.5 mm. Hold your finger tips 2.5 mm apart and just gawp at the minute focal length we're talking about, and then realise that even at wide apertures your dof will extend from the front element to infinity for most of your outdoor shooting.

There's good reason for omitting 'filter' threads with such a wide-angle converter. It's hard enough keeping that front element absolutely spotless and well hooded without having people confound the problem by adding more glass surfaces.

If you must, then go for it. Polarisors are difficult to emulate in post but for most other filtration you're better of doing it (and more importantly undoing it) on the timeline.

tom.

cokin is doing filter holder with big size. the biggest being the Z-pro serie up to 110mm (to be verified)

Haven't had much time to play around with it yet, but it is heavy. So what shoulder mount do you have for yours?

Hey Paul... I asked myself that same question and did a lot of research. My decision? I went with the Tiffen Steady Stick... and I'm really happy that I did. It's light weight, easy to manage (if you use the same quickmount for the SS and your tripod) and really works like they say. (Not to mention it's only a hundred bucks!)

This short thread lays it out and the link to the page with the video is very helpful (it was that video that helped me make the decision.)

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=85001&highlight=steady+stick+video

We have a forum dedicated entirely to shoulder supports, the Steady Stick, etc.:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=121

I've seen that demo video bit before. His mention of the "coopler" (the way he pronounces coupler) cracks me up. :D

Bill

Are there any third party WA extensions that will work with the A1?

I will only use it a little bit, and mostly for web video, so I'm guessing that a $80 jobber might do the trick.

Also, does anyone have any screen shots of how wide the WD-H72 will take you?

anyone have any screen shots of how wide the WD-H72 will take you?Search is your friend, Barry!

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=80691

and

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=80716

Lol, yeah Chris, search is how I found this thread.

I really like that second shot, buy it didn't use "Wide Angle," ah well.

Thanks.

Still interested in any input on the el-cheapo types.

Well, I had to show what full telephoto is like with that adapter, since it is a zoom-through.

Beware the el-cheapo, especially with HD! Don't you know, you get what you pay for?

Yeah, I know. It's just hard to justify the $400 when I'm mostly shooting for web anyway, and when I don't even have a specific need yet. The last time I needed it was for a 10 second bathroom shot shown at 425x239. I figure cheap won't read much there. If I had a full screen project I wouldn't be thinking about the cheap path.

I'm still considering it, though. Thanks again.

Hello everyone.

I'm having difficulty deciding whether to go for the Century (0.8x VS08CV72) or Canon (0.75x WD-H72) wide angle lens for the A1. The Century has a more universal front filter size, but costs more. The Canon comes with a lens hood (the Century one doesn't as far as I can tell) but does not have a thread for a front filter. A matte box is not a consideration at present as it will be quite awhile before I can afford one!

Does anyone have any experience with either or both of these lenses? Is Century better quality or should I stick with 'manufacturer's own'?

Have you got the camera yet to see if you really need the wide angle adapter? The lens itself is ususually wide.

I have a Canon .7X I bought a few years ago for a DSR250. It was cheap, and it has quite a bit of distortion when there are strong vertical lines near the edges. The only times I have used it are usually in a car, shooting a driver, so the distortion isn't too noticeable. If it's something you need to use a lot, you'd be better off to spend more money on a better one. Just my opinion.

I have checked the lens already on the camcorder - fantastic, for both wide and telephoto (in my newbie opinion). I guess I just want to be prepared, in case I am in the situation where I will need the lens to go wider (like shooting in a car for example). So do you think it's worth the little bit extra for the Century?

I have checked the lens already on the camcorder - fantastic, for both wide and telephoto (in my newbie opinion). I guess I just want to be prepared, in case I am in the situation where I will need the lens to go wider (like shooting in a car for example). So do you think it's worth the little bit extra for the Century?
Mark, please clarify which wa have you actually checked? I'm after a good one myself!
What is the Century's weight and performance (barrel distorsion, color fringing, is it fully zoom-through)?

I think the lens on the XH A1 is wide enough for anything I'd do in a car. What I'd recommend if you just want the adapter to have one for the really unusual situation is buy the cheaper Canon. You can pay a lot more for the Century which gives you zoom-through and probably a little less edge distortion, but in my opinion it's not really worth it.

I have the Canon, and it's very nice. Its only real negative is that it isn't threaded for using filters. In terms of sharpness, etc. it's very good.

I have a couple Century lenses for my Z1 and they're very nice. They don't have filter threads, but Century has a relatively inexpensive lens shade/filter holder which clamps on to the outside of the lens. This is the Sony version, but it may also work on the Canon lens because I think they just provide different adaptors for the basic lens. I have one of these and it's very nice. Similar to a mattebox but the filter holder doesn't rotate.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=376587&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

This item wasn't on their website the last time I looked. When I got my lenses they had a promotional flyer enclosed in the box offering a discount on the filter holder which brought the price under $100. Give Century a call or send e-mail to see if it's compatible with their Canon lenses and if there is still a discount.

When I said I had already checked the lens on the camcorder, I meant the built in Canon 20x lens. Sorry if I didn't make that clear!

Is the Canon WD-H72 zoom through? I might go for that one if it is, simply because it's cheaper and the general consensus seems to be that it works just as well as the Century (and it comes with its own shade - unlike the Century where you have to buy one seperately for an extra $120, or get a matte box, and I just can't afford either at the moment).

Also, has anyone here had any experience with Digital Optics lenses? They do wide angle lenses too.

Unlike Bill, I feel the XH -A1's lens is pretty so-so at the wide end, being the equivalent of 32.5 mm. Nobody ever calls that wide in still terms, so I feel a 0.5x converter would be much more useful, and especially so when in the confines of a motor car.

And don't go thinking that wide-angle converters are threaded 'for filters'. When you're working at focal lengths as minute as 2.5 mm, filters are often going to degrade the image more than they're going to help. The threads are there invariably for hoods, and with widies hoods are good, very good.

The Century 0.65x I had for my VX2k was beautifully made, exceedingly sharp, very expensive and wonderfully coated. But my Raynox 6600PRO gave me far less barrel distortion at one third the price, so if avoiding the bends is important to you, beware of zoom throughs that use spherical elements in their construction.

There's no substitute for the adage 'suck it and see'.

tom.

Not having had much experience with additional lenses, what with being a bit new to this (ok, I haven't had ANY experience with wide angle lenses - I'm just learning what I can from forums such as this), would anyone be able to recommend a 'wider' wide angle lens other than the Century and Canon as discussed above (preferably something that isn't going to take a great chunk out of my bank balance, or give my wife an excuse to leave me).

On a side note, I have ordered a Raynox HDP-9000EX High Definition Telephoto conversion Lens 1.8X, which is supposed to be very nice, and a Raynox HD-FXR180 High Vision 180-degree (diagonal) Fish-Eye Conversion Lens (which was designed for the Sony HD cams such as the Z1 but is apparently compatible with all 72mm mount threads) - apparently Raynox are the oft over-looked but good quality lens manufacturers. Has anyone had any experience with Raynox, or indeed the two lenses I have just mentioned?

Unlike Bill, I feel the XH -A1's lens is pretty so-so at the wide end, being the equivalent of 32.5 mm. Nobody ever calls that wide in still terms, so I feel a 0.5x converter would be much more useful, and especially so when in the confines of a motor car.

And don't go thinking that wide-angle converters are threaded 'for filters'. When you're working at focal lengths as minute as 2.5 mm, filters are often going to degrade the image more than they're going to help. The threads are there invariably for hoods, and with widies hoods are good, very good.

The Century 0.65x I had for my VX2k was beautifully made, exceedingly sharp, very expensive and wonderfully coated. But my Raynox 6600PRO gave me far less barrel distortion at one third the price, so if avoiding the bends is important to you, beware of zoom throughs that use spherical elements in their construction.

There's no substitute for the adage 'suck it and see'.

tom.


Just curious Tom, but how would filter use degrade image quality? Filters for wides are used constantly in still photography, and I have not seen a case where image quality was worse for using a filter. But I am not claiming to know everything here.

I have however, seen several cases where a once-good lens has been converted to scrap because of cleaning marks from cleaning an unprotected lens with the best of care over time have caused all kinds of undesireable effects. I have also had lenses saved by filters taking the brunt of an impact (while back packing) and from objects striking the filter instead of my expensive lens (while filming a road bike race).

The real risk to image quality is not in using filters but in damage to the lens from not using one, that may not be realaized until after a critical shoot (as can happen if you are not careful with cleaning mark). Then you have a real problem.

I somehow failed to check the Canon wide for threads before purchasing it. Would I have bought it anyways had I known? That would depend on the cost diff between the Canon and the Century, which I believe is threaded.

Filters are used for wideangle lenses in still photography, sure. But a wide lens on a 6 x 6 camera is 50 mm and a wide lens on a 35 mm camera is 28 mm (say). A wide lens on a PDX10 (to take an example) is 2.5 mm.

See the difference? Space your fingertips just 2.5 mm apart and see how minute such a focal length is. And when you're shooting at such focal lengths it very difficult indeed to avoid imperfections (dust and fingerprints that are all but invisible to the naked eye) from being within the depth of field and appearing pretty sharply on your image.

You've all seen the wide shot against the light spoilt by dirty filters. Hooding a widie is difficult at the best of times and these imperfections I'm talking about are painfully obvious. Another point - adding but one filter adds two reflecting (and maybe dusty) surfaces.

Modern multicoatings are really hard these days and it takes a halfwit to scratch the front element by scrubbing. I have a super multi-coated Hoya and an uncoated Tiffen, both UVs. In 10 seconds flat I can show any one of you out there the degradation caused by using an uncoated filter, and you'd never use an uncoated filter ever again. And the shorter the focal length, the easier it is to show the flare.

Of course there are times when a clear UV is good mechanical insurance protection Steve. Sticky-fingered children's parties, wind-swept beaches and so on. But when you don't need the protection, don't use them. If Canon, Sony and Panasonic thought that adding another element to the line-up of 15 would give you better pictures, you can bet the camera would come with one.

tom.

I called Schneider Optics in California after being refered to them by their colleagues on the east coast.

When I asked about HD adapters and convertors for the Canon XH-A1, I was informed the following will be released in 45 to 60 days.

x.6 w/a adapter (partial-zoom)
x.7 w/a converter (full-zoom)
x.8 w/a converter (full-zoom)
x.3 fisheye
x.4 or x.45 fisheye (couldn't confirm at the time)

do you know if the .7 use the bayonet mount ??

do you know if the .7 use the bayonet mount ??

Barry,

the woman I talked to (on #107) told me all their heavier duty converters etc were bayonet mount so they don't strip some of the plastic threaded camera inserts.

Barry,

the woman I talked to (on #107) told me all their heavier duty converters etc were bayonet mount so they don't strip some of the plastic threaded camera inserts.
good -- its nutty that Canon used the screw thread on their own converter...

Any ideas of the cost?

No mention of costs, though she did suggest contacting my local dealer(s).

I had a go with one of these today. Falls to bits after zooming 50% but i was very impressed nonetheless. very light, user friendly and gives you a good extra 30% vision.

I had a go with one of these today. Falls to bits after zooming 50% but i was very impressed nonetheless. very light, user friendly and gives you a good extra 30% vision. Less than 200 quid too.

I have one from Red Eye, .5 wide angle, it is very sharp, no resolution loss at all looking at it on my 1080 monitor, just as good if not better than my Century optics .6 but with the advantage of the size and weight of a filter, a little bending on the edge but that is to be expected with a .5, but I could not be any happier with it, the website said that it is not zoom through but I could with my A1 to about 1/3 range, they deliver it promptly and this company or the owner (videographer himself) is a pleasure to do business with, I highly recommend it.

I have the inexpensive Raynox .3 Semi Fisheye that has a spring loaded clip on mechanism. It is only about $100. Not the best piece of glass in the world but I used it for a few different things in weddings with the GL2 and VX cameras.

It wouldn't fit the 72mm threads of the A1. It snaps in up to 67mm. I went to the camera store and got a 72 -62 step down ring and now it fits fine. I just left the stepdown ring on the cam and got a new lens cap. It vignettes pretty good at full wide angle but I can zoom in almost half way before it goes blurry. The A1 focus can hold the image to about 1/2 way. I plugged my cam into my SD LCD tv to see how the image looks. It seemed as clean zoomed in to remove the vignetting as it did in full wide mode.

It isn't optimized for HD but for a few shots it will work while I save the money needed for one of the really good ones.

Just thought I would throw that one out there for a simple fix.

Thanks for your help guys, I appreciate it. I can't wait to get one!

That RedEye looks pretty good. Not a bad price compared to some.

Has anyone had any experience using Canon's WD-H72 wide converter? I am interested to buy it but would like to know if there are any other and better alternatives like Century Optics after market wide converters. Also, does the WD-H72 come with a lens hood or does the one from the XH stock lens fits it?

Thanks.

Thierry.